Miguel Chavez Vanderbilt University The Failed Explorer: John Petherick and Reputation in Nile Exploration Under the aegis of the Royal Geographical Society, British explorers of the nineteenth century traversed the interior of an unknown continent to discover new sights and solve old mysteries. Among these mysteries was the centuries-long quest to discover the source of the river Nile. But bounded in this quest were questions about how explorers can authoritatively speak about a discovery. How can an explorer demonstrate the veracity of their claims? How can an explorer legitimately speak with the voice of a scientist or as a practitioner of science? The questions were most evident in the vitriolic rivalry of John Hanning Speke and Richard Francis Burton over their competing claims of the Nile’s true source. But this can also be seen in the rise and fall of the career of John Petherick, a little-known explorer of the Nile Valley. Petherick’s career exemplified how reputation – even if divorced from the work of an explorer – nonetheless impacted the legitimacy of the explorer. In assessing John Petherick and the accusations dogging his career, we may better understand how trends within the history of science can be applied in Nile exploratory history. John Petherick came to the attention of the Royal Geographical Society due to his experience in the Nile Valley in the 1840s and 1850s. Arriving in Egypt to assist in the search for coal deposits in 1845, Petherick shifted his focus towards the gum arabic and ivory trade. Operating in territories that are now part of Sudan and South Sudan, Petherick traveled into regions unvisited by other Europeans. The most significant of these journeys was to the Bahr el Ghazal river, located in the Sudd swamplands that was impenetrable for earlier expeditions.1 In 1 “Address: At the Anniversary Meeting of the Royal Geographical Society, May 28, 1869, by the Earl DeGray and Ripon, President.,” The African Repository Issue 6, June 01, 1861: 172; From here on out, this region would just be referred as the Sudd. 1858 Petherick was appointed by the British state as the Vice-Consul of Khartoum, representing British interests in the Upper Nile.2 After a final Nile expedition in 1858, Petherick returned to Britain in 1859.3 While in Britain, Petherick would publish a book based on his prior sixteen years in Egypt and Sudan. But more significant was Petherick’s meetings with the Royal Geographical Society (RGS) regarding Petherick’s involvement in an expedition to verify the source of the White Nile. A few years earlier an expedition led by Richard Francis Burton had explored East Africa in search of a lake purportedly believed to be the source of the Nile. After finding Lake Tanganyika in early 1858, one of Burton’s lieutenant, John Hanning Speke, stumbled upon Lake Victoria in 1858. The discoveries of these lakes led to a heated controversy between Burton and Speke over which lake constituted the real source of the Nile River. Arriving back in Britain around the same time as Petherick, Speke and Burton’s competing claims led the RGS to plan a new expedition to verify Speke’s claim regarding Lake Victoria. Given his familiarity with the region north of the lake, Petherick was invited to join the expedition. Specifically, while Speke and his expedition would arrive at Zanzibar and move north towards Lake Victoria, Petherick was to return to Khartoum and organize supplies for Speke. Petherick was to then traverse the Sudd swamplands and set up a supply depot at the village of Gondokoro, which is to the south of the Sudd.4 Speke’s arrival at Gondokoro would not only function as a place of respite, but would serve to bookend his expedition over unknown territory. Believing that Petherick was “particularly fitted” to engage in this expedition, the RGS solicited public donations to fund the estimated £2,000 cost of Petherick’s expedition, although 2 Verdcourt, The Conchologists’ Newsletter, 453-458. 3 Petherick, Egypt, the Soudan and Central Africa, 480. 4 “Life in Central Africa,” Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, April 1861: 452-453; Gondokoro is near the site of modern-day Juba, the South Sudanese capital. only £1,000 was raised and given to Petherick.5 Petherick agreed to serve in this expedition and returned to Khartoum in mid-October 1861.6 John Petherick’s involvement in this expedition elevated him to a preeminent position among contemporary explorers. In musing about the shared origins of Africa’s great rivers, J.F. Napier Hewett placed Petherick, alongside David Livingstone, Richard Burton, and John Hanning Speke as the explorers most likely to solve this mystery. In a book review of Petherick’s Egypt, the Soudan, and Central Africa (1861), Blackwood’s Edinburgh magazine extolled both Petherick’s personal character and writing style. Comparing Petherick’s adventures with the unadventurous “slaves of the desk” of then-contemporary Britain, the review goes on to state that Petherick is "a remarkable specimen of that Anglo-Saxon race which, in the strangely- mingled characteristics of knight-errant and trader, sends victorious children to every part of the habitable globe."7 In explaining the focus upon Petherick’s character in the review, the reviewer said, “[we] have dwelt on the character of Mr. Petherick, because much of the charm and value of a traveller's [sic] work must depend on his personal qualities."8 These two passages reflected the idea that personal reputation directly impacted the trustworthiness of an individual engaged in a scientific enterprise. That Petherick exemplified standards of virility, honor, and prowess meant that Petherick was trustworthy as an explorer. Of course, Blackwood’s review took at face value Petherick’s self-fashioned narrative that highlighted Petherick’s standing as an explorer. But Petherick’s narrative, if exaggerated, nonetheless reflected an attempt to conform to social expectations of how an explorer should and should not behave. These pressures have been articulated by historians of science regarding the 5 “Life in Central Africa,” Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, April 1861: 458; Verdcourt, The Conchologists’ Newsletter, 453-458; “The Sources of the Nile,” The African Repository Issue 3 (March 01, 1861): 95. 6 Katherine Petherick, “Mrs. Petherick’s African Journal, Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, June 1862: 696. 7 “Life in Central Africa,” 440, 452. 8 “Life in Central Africa,” 452. natural sciences in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. As an example, James Endersby’s Imperial Nature (2010) examined the life and career of Joseph Hooker, the famed botanist and head of the Kew Gardens.9 Endersby argued that Hooker sought to maintain the scientific authority as a disinterested botanist with the practical need to maintain a living through profit.10 But whereas Endersby and other historians of science focused on so-called “gentlemanly scientists,” that is those scientists of the British gentry who resisted the professionalization of scientific practices in the nineteenth century, self-described explorers conformed to standards mirroring those reflected in Blackwood’s review of Petherick. Petherick’s reputation as an ideal explorer coincided with his role as Britain’s consular representative in Khartoum and his earlier role as a gum and ivory merchant. These coexisting identities were known to travelers and would-be explorers making their way from Egypt to Khartoum. Clarence Brownville Melville, an American physician travelling the Nile, sought out Petherick for the chance to join the expedition to rendezvous with Speke.11 Meeting Petherick a few days after his arrival to Khartoum, Brownell expressed admiration for Petherick’s prior exploration of the region.12 After receiving and accepting an offer by Petherick to join the expedition as the chief botanist, Brownell remained in Khartoum as preparations for the expedition were finalized. During this time, Brownell described the luxury of Petherick’s residence, describing sumptuous dinners, nightly parties, and the large staff that maintained the household.13 On 22 March 1861, Petherick, Brownell, and their expedition departed Khartoum for Gondokoro.14 However, the expected rendezvous with Speke did not occur. Unbeknownst to 9 Jim Endersby, Imperial Nature: Joseph Hooker and the Practices of Victorian Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010). 10 Endersby, Imperial Nature, 5-7, 29. 11 Charles Melville Brownell, journal, “Khartum,” entry for 9 March 1862. SAD.424/9/54. Sudan Archive, Durham University. 12 Charles Melville Brownell, journal, “Mr. Petherick,” entry for 11 March 1862. SAD.424/9/57. 13 Charles Melville Brownell, journal, “Savage dances,” entry for 15 March 1862. SAD.424/9/60. 14 Charles Melville Brownell, journal, “The real start,” entry for 22 March 1862. SAD.424/9/64. Petherick, Speke’s expedition was delayed due to political squabbling amongst the native tribes and kingdoms with the arrival of Speke’s expedition. This delay forced Petherick to stay in Gondokoro for a year while he waited for Speke’s arrival.15 A few months after Petherick’s departure, Samuel White Baker, another RGS-sanctioned explorer operating along the Blue Nile, made his way to Petherick’s residence in Khartoum. Entering the residence, Baker was awed by Petherick’s personal menagerie of two ostriches, two leopards, one hyena, and a bamboo.16 Having completed his own expedition of the Blue Nile in Abyssinia, Baker planned to launch his own expedition along the White Nile, taking supplies and provisions to Gondokoro to rendezvous with Speke.17 While Baker did not address how his plans conflicted with Petherick’s, Baker nonetheless reported about his time in Khartoum and his meetings with the European community present in the city. Baker noted the luxurious houses of French, Austrians, Italians, and Greeks living in the city.18 Baker acknowledged the importance of the gum arabic trade in the commercial life of Khartoum, but slavery, Baker contended, was the lifeblood of the city.19 As Baker stated: The people for the most part engaged in the nefarious traffic of the White Nile are Syrians, Copts, Turks, Circassians, and some few Europeans [sic].